Ricky Arlen Turner, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0878

Ricky Arlen Turner, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed April 26, 2021
Reversed and remanded
Reyes, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-CR-17-2023

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Erik I. Withall, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Pete Orput, Washingt on County Attorney, Nicholas A. Hydukovich, Assistant County
Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Reyes
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REYES, Judge
In this appeal from the postconviction court’s denial of his postconviction petition,
appellant argues that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel . We reverse and
remand.

2
FACTS
Appellant Ricky Arlen Turner pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting racketeering by
enterprise under Minn. Stat. § 609.903, subd. 1(1) (2016), and promoting prostitution under
Minn. Stat. § 609.322, subd. 1a(2) (2016). On December 19, 2019, appellant, then self -
represented, filed a postconviction petition under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1(1) (2018),
challenging the district court’s authority to impose a ten-year conditional-release term and
require appellant to regi ster as a predatory offender. Appellant served his petition on the
Minnesota Attorney General, Washington County Attorney, and the Washington County
district court administrator. The district court administrator did not send a copy of the
petition to the state public defender’s office.
The postconviction court summarily denied appellant’s petition on the merits
without appointing counsel or indicating whether appellant waived counsel. This appeal
followed, and w e accepted jurisdiction, despite an untimely appeal, in the interest of
allowing appellant to obtain judicial review. We also provided a copy of our order
accepting jurisdiction to the public defender ’s office, which assum ed representation on
appeal.
DECISION
Appellant argues that his right to counsel was violated when (1) the postconviction
court failed to appoint counsel for him or find that he waived counsel and (2) the district
court administrator failed to send a copy of his postconviction petition to the public
defender’s office. We agree.

3
As an initial matter, respondent S tate of Minnesota concedes that reversal and
remand is necessary so that appellant can proceed at the postconviction stage with counsel.
But we must decide cases according to the law, even if the parties agree. State v.
Hannuksela, 452 N.W.2d 668, 673 n.7 (Minn. 1990).
“We review a postconviction court’s findings of fact for an abuse of discretion and
questions of law de novo.” Bonga v. State, 765 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn. 2009) (citations
omitted). When the facts are undisputed, as they are here, we review the legal question of
whether a person’s right to counsel has been violated de novo. State v. Slette, 585 N.W.2d
407, 409 (Minn. App. 1998).
Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to counsel. U.S. Const. amend. VI;
Minn. Const. art. I, § 6. The Minnesota Supreme Court extended the state constitutional
right to counsel to a first review of a criminal conviction, either on direct appeal o r by
postconviction proceeding. Deegan v. State, 711 N.W.2d 89, 98 (Minn. 2006). Denial of
counsel is a structural error, Bonga, 765 N.W.2d at 643, and requires no showing of
prejudice to reverse, State v. Camacho, 561 N.W.2d 160, 171 (Minn. 1997).
Additionally, Minnesota law requires the district court administrator to send a copy
of a self-represented postconviction petition to the public defender’s office and advise the
petitioner of the referral. Minn. Stat. § 590.02, subd. 1(4) (2018); Paone v. State , 658
N.W.2d 896, 899 (Minn. App. 2003). In turn, the public defender ’s office must accept
representation of an indigent person in a first review of a criminal conviction. Minn. Stat.
§ 590.05 (2018); Paone, 658 N.W.2d at 899.

4
Here, appellant did not directly appeal his conviction , and this is his first
postconviction petition. This is therefore the first review of his conviction, entitling him
to representation. But because the postconviction court did not inform appellant of his
right to counsel, appoint counsel for him, o r find that he waived counsel, and because the
district court administrator did not send a copy of appellant’s petition to the public
defender’s office , appellant’s right to counsel was violated . We therefore reverse and
remand so that appellant can file a postconviction petition with the assistance of counsel.
We express no opinion on the merits of appellant’s substantive claims.
Reversed and remanded.